Blah blah blah blah blah. The entire article is just blah blah blah. The guy needs an editor to cut it to 10% of it's size. Is he paid by the word or something? He sure knows the art of saying nothing using many words.

Heck I can summarize it in 2 words:

Modified atkins.

I think the explanation usually is more emotional and less analytical. People start to dislike anything that gets a lot of publicity. Everyone is susceptible to this to some degree, but some people more than others.

As for the question of whether we help people or not, I don't think many people who know what goes on inside YC would argue that we didn't improve startups' prospects by 6.4%, which is what we have to do to earn our keep. Considering the amount of effort we put into it, we'd have to be pretty ineffective not to manage that.

I would add a forth choice personally:

mostly cs/hacker stuff, with some intellectually stimulating stuff

That's actually the balance I feel we have right now.

I voted for "no, anything intellectually stimulating" because that seems to be what we have no and it seems to be working (for me).

I think part of the reason for the Y Combinator hate is that the valuations YC offers are so low and it's not clear whether YC significantly helps the teams it funds. Wait, don't throw those tomatoes, let me explain!

The valuation YC offers -- a median of 250k for a two-person team -- would be absurdly high if it was being offered to any team of two recent college graduates; but YC doesn't make offers to just any team. YC only picks the best teams (about 5% of applicants if I'm remembering the statistics correctly)... and it's not unreasonable to expect that the top 5% of teams are worth far more than average.

Similarly, the chance of a YC-funded team succeeding (for whatever definition of "success" you choose) is much higher than the chance of a non-YC-funded team succeeding -- but this doesn't necessarily imply that YC is helping the companies it funds. It might just be that YC is very good at picking winning teams.

This isn't to say that YC is making all of its money by taking advantage of the people it funds, though: Simply by selecting those top 5% of teams, YC provides a very valuable service -- distinguishing teams which have a 50%+ chance of success from those with a 5% chance of success, and encouraging the teams with a 50%+ chance, is certainly economically useful; and the profit which accrues to YC as a result of that is not qualitatively different from the profits which any other smart investor makes by figuring out that a stock is undervalued -- in both cases, the investor is doing work to increase the efficiency of a market.

The economist in me wishes that we could experimentally separate the selection process from the 3 month YC program in order to determine their relative importance -- but somehow I doubt the YC crew would be interested in running an experiment where they either (a) pick good teams and only fund half of them (in order to determine whether the teams they identified as good were likely to succeed with or without YC), or (b) fund a "good cohort" and a "bad cohort" of applicants simultaneously (in order to determine if being funded by YC is enough to make anybody successful).

(In addition to the difficulty of running such an experiment, the YC crew might not want to have this question answered: They probably don't want to be confronted by teams saying "well, were interested in being funded at a valuation of $200k -- but knowing that YC thinks that we're a strong team has resulted in us increasing our self-valuation to $800k".)

But in the absence of experimental data, the question remains open, with all the attached room for anti-capitalist hatred: Does YC help the teams it funds... or are they just shrewd investors?

Bail.

If I can summarize your words: worry, illegal, unethical?, gray area, personally accountable, lions share, 'did not site well with me', final say, dubious.

At no point did you say 'exciting' or 'amazing' or anything remotely exciting about it.

It's easy to criticize 'blah blah blah'. But the style of the article is personal testimonial plus character study. It's going to include discursive storytelling, and it's not trying to boil down a diet/lifestyle/person to the fewest possible words. The cheapest form of criticism is to skewer a work for not meeting some ideal it wasn't even aiming for.

DeVany is a very interesting and credible guy with a different spin on eating and training than you'll usually find.

Check out especially his warnings about marathon/endurance running [1] compared to the typical media celebration of marathon running as some ideal of fitness [2].

[1] "Top Ten Reasons Not To Run Marathons", http://www.arthurdevany.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons.html

[2] "The Perfect Human", http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/ultraman.html

Napkins. The solution you're looking for is napkins. But, it's true, they're hard to write on, so we'll compromise.

Take a pad of paper and a good pen (hint: Pilot G2) and go to a place that is entirely free of computers. Coffee is optional.

Start sketching. Your goal is a set of notes, an outline, a diagram or two, and/or some paper-based UI wireframes that describe your project. Imagine that you're trying to invite a recent comp sci grad to work on your project with you: What might you sketch? Draw that.

You can use emacs if you want, but on no account should you allow yourself to choose a font for your spec. If you find yourself reaching for the Fonts menu, or wondering whether your spec should have a standardized header and footer, you have stopped planning and started procrastinating.

You need to do some planning, because you don't want to waste time implementing stuff that doesn't even work on paper. But you don't necessarily need a capital-D Document, or even a real presentation. Once the napkin sketch of your finished product is complete, to your own satisfaction, it's time to build the prototype and observe all your mistakes. ;)

Absolutely. I can't tell you how friggin' sick I am of inadvertently clicking on an "Experts Exchange" link in a google search set. The microsecond it takes my eyes to register an EE site and click back is one too many. I'm pretty sure EE owes me about 10 years of my life up to this point.